Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Someone Who Just Moved Here Tells U… | A $22 an Hour Minimum Wage »

Monday, March 18, 2013

Crime / City The City Attorney's Sneaky-Smart Plan to Kill the Union-Backed Police Reform Lawsuit

Posted by Cienna Madrid on Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:38 PM

City Attorney Pete Holmes office filed a motion today seeking to bump a lawsuit filed by local police unions, which could stymie Seattle's efforts at police reform, from superior court to federal district court.

To recap, the city is working with an independent monitor, Merrick Bobb, to draft a plan to reform our forceful police department at the behest of the Department of Justice. The police unions' lawsuit argues that the reform plan would infringe upon their collective bargaining rights, so they're suing to stop it.

Holmes's latest motion (.pdf) is a seemingly mundane read, but moving the police-union lawsuit from King County Superior Court to US District Court could be the quickest way to kill it altogether. As U.S. District Judge James Robart explained in a hearing on the police reform plan last week:

Robart, who described Bobb as an “agent of the court,” said he was “not aware of any jurisprudence which allows a state court to tell me what to do in my settlement agreement.” He said he considered the labor groups’ efforts “a further distraction” from implementing the agreement.

In other words, Robart's opinion trumps that of the superior courts and his opinion is, this lawsuit is a "distraction." So I'd assume that punting the lawsuit to Robart's domain is Holmes's cleanest shot at killing it right out of the gate.

FacebookShare

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

All this well founded concern about rape could really hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016. Aiding and abetting a rapist of so many women..with today's young females stand for it?

Posted by No more Presidential rape on March 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM

In light of this I bet McGinn's cop-union buds are back yelling at him to take another crack at shutting Holmes up like he tried to a couple weeks ago. I'm sure the mayor wants to help SPOG out, except the judge totally dismissed the grounds on which he tried to silence Holmes last time:

The judge also dissuaded the city of a notion, first put forth by McGinn during a Feb. 27 news briefing, that the city’s agreement with the DOJ — signed in July — settled the litigation between them.

McGinn’s legal counsel, Carl Marquardt, repeated the assertion in a March 5 letter to Holmes, saying “implementation of the Settlement Agreement is not ‘litigation.’ ”

He said the agreement makes clear that it is an accord between the city and DOJ to avoid litigation. Marquardt asserted that implementation “falls squarely” within the mayor’s authority.

That view is “simply wrong,” Robart said.

But Mike's pretty crafty, and his lawyer seems willing to say any old thing, so I'm sure it ain't over yet.

Posted by gloomy gus on March 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Here is what Seattle police reform should look like:

* Be nicer to people threatening you with carving knives and guns. Accept any officer injury in the line of duty as SPD's fault.

* Ignore any minority who is breaking the law. Particularly the loudest and most obnoxious minorities with their own associations.

* Focus more on rich white people going to work. Give SPD taxing authority.

* When the NAACP yells "Racist," just drop your head and say "Yessa Massa. Yessa."

Posted by GeneStoner on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Clearly an attack by the right-wing Seattle City government to rob unions of their collective bargaining rights. Right, you histrionic socialists??

Posted by hypocrites, all of yah... on March 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Wow. Y'all sure get along.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM

You are aware there are other federal judges than Robart, right? And that he'd likely have to recuse himself of hearing said case? Your logic (that this case will somehow end up before Robart who will then toss it out?) is kiiiiiinda specious.

Posted by Illogical Captain on March 18, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The file name is spog removal. Throwing the sheets in the laundry usually works for me.

On the topic, if there is already a pending case in federal court opening a new trial in state court is a dumb move. I think Federal pre-emption is a slam dunk here.

Posted by wl on March 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Pete Holmes for mayor!!!

Posted by pfffter on March 18, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Juanita Broaddrick

Hillary Clinton is Joe Paterno

Posted by End the violence on March 18, 2013 at 9:28 PM

@9

Was 1992 the last year you were lucid?

Posted by GermanSausage on March 18, 2013 at 9:44 PM

@8: Hey, that's my line.

Sneaky Pete Holmes for mayor!!!!

Posted by seandr on March 18, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Quick point; this isn't actually a motion. A notice of removal moves a case from state court to federal court automatically, without any judge doing anything. To get it back to state court, the other side would have to ask the federal judge to send it back ("remand") it to state court. Given that the federal courts seem to have jurisdiction, that is extremely unlikely to happen.

In other words, the game might already be lost.

Posted by Marooner on March 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM